You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

There have been many words attempted. Ignostic, Nullifidian, Gesargenplotzian. There have been many distinctions made within atheists; "gnostic" atheism versus "agnostic" atheism, "strong" versus "weak", even "Catholic" versus "Protestant" (by Bertrand Russell). Some have tried "negative" versus "positive". See for examplehttp://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WHATISPOSATH
I have quoted (in the essay) from leaders of the Atheist Alliance and American Atheists, who took the same position, that atheism is more than a simple absence.

You seem to be saying that all of these folks are mistaken, that the only valid use if the word "atheist" is purely negative, indicating vacuum and vacuum only, and these folks should all rename themselves and either disband or rename their organizations. This website itself, Atheist Nexus, would in this view be utterly pointless. In this view, the word "atheism" could never be a noun, only an adjective. Indeed, the word "atheism" should not exist, because there is nothing there to make an "ism"; you could say that something or some person was atheist, but not that they had adopted or practiced atheism.

In my essay I am arguing, in a nutshell, that "atheism" is a perfectly good word, that like many other words it can have multiple meanings, that definitions report how a word is used, and the activist atheists who make and join organizations with "atheist" in their names use the word to mean a number of positive things.

The distinction I make, between "passive" and "active" atheism, recognizes and allows the use of the word as an adjective denoting absence. I am pointing out that this is not the only way the word is used, and it is not the way activist atheists use the word.

I was never a Marxist, but in my eight years as a passionate Libertarian, and in my many years of studying economics, I learned a little ABOUT Marxism, and there is a Marxist concept that says it nicely. It is summed up by the quote at the end: The philosophers have only explained the world, the point is to change it. We are not doing philosophy here, we are doing Praxis. Theism, and religion generally, is not only a philosophical proposition that some X exists. It is a historical practice, a way of knowing and living, that has affected the lives of most of humankind for all of history. Activist atheists go beyond failing to accept the philosophical proposition that some X exists. They create an alternative historical practice to challenge and displace religion.

Pick an ideology or philosophy. Atheism isn't one. An atheist can be a humanist, rational skeptic, existentialist, nihilist, bare-bones Buddhist, Raellian, Bright, naturalist, monist, etc. You may need a new word for what you have in mind, for which atheistic would be an appropriate adjective, but redefining atheism isn't the way to go. I admit anti-theistic Secular Humanism doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but that seems to be roughly what you're talking about.

I like the gist of what you're saying, you're right about a lot, but it's not a word problem.

My argument is, that if atheism is to be considered significant, it must involve a rejection of theism, not just an absence of it. If Theism (or more generally "religion") is to be rejected, it must be considered both false and harmful. If it is both false and harmful, then it is implied that alternatives to religious ways of knowing and living must exist. Active atheism, by itself, implies little about what those alternatives are, but, science is the only alternative way of knowing I've ever heard of that has any credibility. The practice of science, as Bronowski argued, implies at least some humanist, classical liberal, and egalitarian values.

I'll give you a distinction: there is a world of difference between an ideology and a philosophy. Freethought as a method and a set of values is radically different from a dogmatic system like Marxism or Islam or Christianity. Or Libertarianism.

Among animals, it is eat or be eaten. Among people, it is define or be defined.

It wasn't just the Marx quote, John. Portions of your piece indeed only echoed what most of us already know. But the implication of the piece as a whole is the issue.

"Active atheism must, as a practical necessity, include much more than the absence of god-beliefs." What you're describing isn't active atheism, it's active secularism. There are plenty of theists who fight for secularism. It's very important to distinguish between the two. Your definitive phrase is really just "anti-theism," which is a completely different creature than secularism. Of course the English language's vocabulary is full of ambiguous words, but few of them stray from the central meaning. While technically adumbrating the adjectives you did to "atheism" doesn't really change its definition, your following words certainly attempt it.

"The logic of atheism is that, if one person is free to control her or his own life, all must be free." I could be an atheist and not feel that a person is free to control his or her own life. So if I am an atheist by definition, how could I be following the "logic of atheism?" What I'd be following is the logic of an ideology or philosophy, like Marxism or Islam or Christianity.

Point here is that at the very least, your descriptions are inaccurate. It isn't just that you describe an atheist who is not humanistic as "passive", but that you strongly suggest that the crucial intent behind atheism is humanistic. A rejection of something is simply that: a rejection. I'm attempting to show you how logically tenuous it is to entwine broad definitions with very specific ones. This is the trouble with modern polemics. While semantics are indeed tedious, and while I certainly defend one's moral and logical right to a creative discourse, we can't forget the central meaning.

In my very first post for this site, I erroneously suggested that atheism was a philosophy. It is not. It is merely a label. It doesn't symbolize anything but a lack of belief. The phrase "active atheism" doesn't make it any more than a label either. Stalin could easily be described as an "active atheist."

If you follow a certain social movement or ideology, that's your prerogative. However, let's be accurate with our terminology. Be whatever kind of atheist you want to be, but the suggestion that an atheist who doesn't follow a social movement is "passive" is, as I said, incorrect. Consciously being an individualist is anything but passive. Individualists (some of whom can even be theists; your assumption that all "believers" are by default mindless "slaves" is also erroneous) constantly question the wisdom behind vaulting collectivism.

Compartmentalize. Theism vs atheism, though not insignificant, remains an intangible debate. However, slavery, collectivism, dictatorial tyranny, injustice and most of what we consider the humanities are all things that directly affect human lives. Non (traditional)-religious and people and non-believers have been and are guilty of all the aforementioned. Secularism vs religion is a wholly different debate.